Dershowitz: Mueller won't produce balanced report

close

Video

Dershowitz: Mueller won't produce balanced report

Is Mueller probe subject to any oversight? Alan Dershowitz shares his thoughts on the Mueller report.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 28, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." If you've been paying attention recently, you may have noticed a very unexpected trend. A number of establishment Liberals, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, suddenly starting to wonder if open borders are really a good idea, after all. Kind of amazing.

What does it mean? Dana Perino will join us in a minute to explain their second thoughts.

Later in the hour, our Ambassador to Germany will tell us what happened to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel when she opened her country's doors to a million refugees in a single year. It's possible there are lessons there for this country.

Then, tomorrow marks the anniversary of Matt Lauer's firing from NBC News for sexual harassment. A year later, has anything changed? We'll talk to a former NBC employee who says the cover-up at NBC is still very much in progress, and she's got details.

Also tonight, a postscript in the long, and exceptionally seedy saga of the Creepy Porn Lawyer. His most famous client appears to have turned against him. Did he defraud her? Details on that just ahead.

But first tonight, after two long years, one of (ph) the most expensive and wide-ranging Independent Counsel investigation, in a generation, we should be close to nabbing those dastardly secret agents from Russia, who hacked our presidential election.

Are we? No, we're not.

Robert Mueller's prosecutors are, instead, threatening elderly men with life in prison for petty crimes, crimes that have nothing to do with spying or Russia or anything else that threatens America. The whole thing is a grotesque joke.

But you never know that from watching cable television. Here was CNN just yesterday in all its breathless stupidity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON HAYS COOPER, AUTHOR, PRIMARY ANCHOR, ANDERSON COOPER 360 , CNN: Potentially big new questions in the Russia investigation and the corresponding lack of answers from the White House.

JIM ACOSTA, AMERICAN JOURNALIST, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And any kind of collusion with the Russians--

DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT HOST, CNN: And then there's the Russia investigation.

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST, EX-DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CIA'S COUNTERTERRORIST CENTER, FORMER FBI NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH OFFICIAL: We know the Russians were involved in interfering with the election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Russians offering, as we know, in the Trump Tower meeting some kind of dirt--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Certainly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --on Hillary Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did Russian hackers begin to target Clinton's accounts?

LEMON: Fact, it's Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Russia, says Don Lemon.

The word itself is a kind of magical incantation that eliminates all skepticism and rational thought in journalists. Whatever the claim is, they believe it wholeheartedly, not just because they're dumb, though, obviously, they are dumb, but because Russia. It's a spell like Eye of Newt.

Just yesterday, The Guardian newspaper reported that Paul Manafort, the former Chairman of the Trump Campaign, held a series of secret meetings with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, over a period of years.

It all sounded very sinister. The problem is there is precisely no evidence that any of that actually happened. There's a lot of evidence to suggest the story is false.

Assange is one of the most closely monitored people on the planet living in Europe's most heavily surveilled city. And yet, somehow, nobody saw, recorded any of these meetings, which, by the way, everybody supposedly present denied ever took place.

The whole thing was absurd. Under pressure from reality, The Guardian quickly walked back its story. And yet, here's the key part. The geniuses in the American Press Corps continued to act like it was all completely real.

The Washington Post Senior Political Reporter, Aaron Blake, repeated The Guardian's claim as gospel. So did Jon Campbell (ph) of CNN and CNBC's John Harwood, not surprisingly, because whatever. It sounded right. Manafort would probably meet with Assange in Russia or London, whatever, who cares if he actually did?

Keep in mind, these are reporters. They're supposed to be fact-based. They're supposed to be our watchdogs. They're not. These people are just mindless enforcers of whatever the establishment line of the day happens to be. They're intellectual thugs dispatched to make the rest of us shut up and obey a ruling class. Who'd believe anything they say?

Mollie Hemingway does not believe what they say. She's a Senior Editor at The Federalist, and she joins us tonight.

Now, The Guardian story I pulled out because in a (ph) great piece that you wrote today, but also because it's a metaphor for a lot of our coverage. This story was transparently thin, at best. And yet, it was repeated as if it was real.

MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's just like all of the other Russia stories that we've seen. There's a claim. It's a very hard to disprove claim. It doesn't really say exactly what's going on but the Russia thing comes into play.

CARLSON: Russia.

HEMINGWAY: And so, everyone just falls for it. As journalists though, we should have a higher standard. We should demand evidence. We should make sure that a story makes sense. And like you pointed out, the - the notion that Julian Assange could have a meeting with, literally, anyone is, and not be detected, is hard to believe.

CARLSON: Three separate times over--

HEMINGWAY: Not once--

CARLSON: --a period of years--

HEMINGWAY: --not twice, but three times. It's not just a heavily surveilled city. He's holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy. They keep logs of who comes in. There's no record of Paul Manafort in those logs. The story explain this away by saying, "Oh well, he failed to - he failed to sign in."

That's ludicrous. So, you need to be - you need to have a higher standard as a reporter, demand some evidence before falling for a story. And it's - it's - all of these stories are used to present - present a cloud of suspicion.

It's not that Russia meddled in the election. They did. They - they have done that for decades. They do it. That's what they're known for.

But the - the notion is that Donald Trump is a traitor who treasonously colluded with Russia to steal Hillary Clinton's election, that's the claim that has been put out in the media. That's the one that they have to prove. To say that they haven't come close to making that to - to proving that claim is an understatement.

CARLSON: The problem is that sometime very soon, this is going to culminate in a report from the Special Counsel's office, and we're going to have to chew over a lot of different allegations. And the people presenting those allegations to us have no credibility left. So, where does that leave the country?

HEMINGWAY: Well, I mean this is the problem. I think you would - you would assume that at this point, if people were still trying to push this theory that they would understand that there's a problem. There's no evidence for it.

CARLSON: Right.

HEMINGWAY: There's no way you can actually, with a straight face, make this claim. You would assume that some reporters would start to try and backpedal.

I don't know if they're just so embarrassed about how much they pushed it, two years ago, to undermine the incoming Administration, if they're embarrassed about how they just received leaks from Intel folks without doing due diligence on them, or if they just fell for the information operation, because they weren't smart enough to see through it, I don't know if it's just that.

CARLSON: Can I ask you a quick question? We're almost out of time, but I'm just interested, since you follow this as closely as you do. Have you heard anybody in the Press Corps say, "Hey, wait a minute. Here you have Robert Mueller threatening 72 year-old Jerome Corsi with prison because he couldn't remember forwarding an email. Maybe that's excessive." Has anybody said that?

HEMINGWAY: There's been no skepticism on any aspect of this story and there's been a - the other - the other part of this is there've been a lot of things that we've learned about bad behavior and bad actions by senior officials in - in the government, and the media have not shown concern or care about that when that's a--

CARLSON: Because they're handmaidens to power, because their - their job is to defend the establishment.

HEMINGWAY: It's - it's shameful.

CARLSON: It is disgusting. Mollie, thank you.

HEMINGWAY: Thank you.

CARLSON: Kim Strassel's on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. She's followed this story very closely and joins us pretty regularly for updates. Kim, it's great to see you tonight. What's the latest?

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: Hi, Tucker.

So, I think, latest, we've got out there, is a new text that was released by Carter Page today, in which it shows that he was first contacted by reporters all the way back in July of 2016 asking him about specific claims that were made about him in that infamous dossier.

CARLSON: Yes.

STRASSEL: And the reason this is important, Tucker, is you go and you look at the testimony from Fusion GPS Founder, Glenn Simpson, or depositions that were made by Christopher Steele's team and they have always made it sound as though when they got this information, these explosive revelations supposedly about Carter Page, they went straight to the FBI.

Their only interest was in national security and alerting law enforcement, and that they didn't actually go to the press until months later. Well, it turns out, almost within days of him putting together these allegations, they were out shopping it to the press, seeing if they could get it out there in the middle of July.

CARLSON: So, what you're saying is that this creepy foreigner with actual Russia ties, Christopher Steele, accuses a former Naval Officer, an Annapolis grad, falsely of being a Russian agent, and know - everybody in the press takes this at face value?

STRASSEL: Well, look, I want to give credit where it's due. And I think this is important. According to Mr. Page, he was contacted by numerous reputable press outfits during the summer, all asking him this question. He denied it. And they never ran with the story.

CARLSON: Right.

STRASSEL: It took Simpson and Fusion all the way up until September to finally get somebody to bite. But the point here, the bigger point is it completely undermines this claim that this was just something they took to law enforcement.

It's clear that already, in the middle of July, before the FBI had ever started its counterintelligence investigation that this was the chatter among the Press Corps, undoubtedly, among most people in the Obama Administration, probably within the intelligence agencies, and undoubtedly, there was pressure being brought to bear on the FBI, therefore, to act.

CARLSON: Amazing. It's an amazing story. At some point, this - the whole story will be written, and I think it'll look very different. I hope you will write it. Kim Strassel, thanks very much for that.

STRASSEL: Right (ph). Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, the Special Counsel investigation is accelerating. At some point, possibly soon, we're going to see Robert Mueller's report, or parts of it. It was not released to the public. Parts of it will certainly be leaked. We'll have that information.

The question is how should we assess it? Alan Dershowitz has thought a lot about this question. He's a retired Harvard Law School professor, Author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, and he joins us tonight.

Professor, thanks for coming on. So, are we likely to--

ALAN MORTON DERSHOWITZ, LAWYER, THE CASE AGAINST IMPEACHING TRUMP AUTHOR, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: My pleasure.

CARLSON: --see this report in whole or part? And what should we think when we do?

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, we will eventually see much of the report, probably the whole report, eventually. But we should never see it until we also see the President's legal team rebuttal, because otherwise it's a completely one-sided presentation.

Remember, it's like an indictment, even though it won't be an indictment. It's one-sided. It's based on the testimony only of witnesses of the prosecution, so it to (ph) call. And as everybody knows, an indictment can't be used as evidence of guilt. It doesn't undercut the presumption of innocence. It's just a charging document.

And that's the way we ought to read the report issued by Mueller. It's simply an accusation. And we must see the other side of the story before we can come to any conclusion. Somehow, people think, it deserves more credibility because it's a Special Counsel report. But that's not true.

CARLSON: Right.

DERSHOWITZ: Special Counsel is just another prosecutor looking at one side of the case, and he will present a one-sided account, which will be very critical of his subjects.

CARLSON: So, the report - there's no requirement that the report has balance in it or shows both sides of any question.

DERSHOWITZ: Quite the opposite. It's a prosecutorial report. It will not show balance. Anybody who expects balance, fairness, nuance is looking at the wrong kind of document. You can't have balance when you haven't heard the other side of the story, when--

CARLSON: Right.

DERSHOWITZ: --you haven't called witnesses who might be exculpatory, when you've only tried to put together a prosecutorial case, and that's why it's essential that the President's team be permitted to issue their own report at the same time the Mueller report is issued.

CARLSON: Interesting. So, the people who said we need a Special Counsel investigation to find out what happened as an informational exercise were--

DERSHOWITZ: No.

CARLSON: --were lying to us. So, let me ask you a more fundamental question about this Special--

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, absolutely--

CARLSON: --Counsel.

DERSHOWITZ: --yes.

CARLSON: So, every person who wields power in our society by design has some sort of oversight. We can - we can defeat our elected representatives in elections, we can recall or impeach our President, our judges. The Special Counsel, we're told, can't be fired because that itself would be an impeachable offense. So, is there oversight of any kind of the Special Counsel?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, first of all, firing the Special Counsel would not be an impeachable offense because it wouldn't be a crime. The President would have the authority to do it. It would be politically very damaging to do it.

CARLSON: Right.

DERSHOWITZ: Look, technically, there is oversight over the Special Counsel in the percentage of the Attorney General. Of course, our Attorney General was recused. Now, we have an Acting Attorney General.

But the regulations provide that the Attorney General is not supposed to micromanage the work of the Special Counsel. He's not like any other U.S. Attorney, who's under the direct supervision.

The ultimate control, the Attorney General has, is whether to release the report, under what circumstances to release the report, whether to redact parts of the report, whether to reject parts of the report, and send it back to the Special Counsel and say, "Look, you didn't do a good enough job. Go back to the drawing board and do it again."

It's unlikely any of those things will occur, except, I think that the Attorney General would be wise to demand that before the Special Counsel report is released to the public or even to Congress that the President's legal team be given an opportunity to review and rebut it, and provide their own report.

Then the American public and Congress can see both sides in tandem--

CARLSON: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: --and make an intelligent decision as to where the right is, and how to bring nuance and find the truth. The truth is best achieved through an adversarial process, through presenting all sides of an issue--

CARLSON: Yes (ph).

DERSHOWITZ: --not presenting one side of an issue.

CARLSON: That's the whole premise of this show, by the way. Professor, thank you, great to see you tonight.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

CARLSON: Amazingly, Hillary Clinton and others on the establishment Left appear to be realizing that open borders may threaten their own agenda. Unexpected. Dana Perino joins us next to explain that.

Plus, Stormy Daniels seems to be turning on the creepiest porn lawyer in the world. She suggests maybe that he's embezzled money from her. Who knows? We've got breaking developments just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, in this country, the press and leaders of the Democratic Party tout immigration as an unmitigated good, always and everywhere, and you're immoral if you disagree.

But once they leave our shores and go abroad, and are not simply seeking power for themselves, occasionally, they say things that's straight from the script.

Take last week, Hillary Clinton told The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain that Europe needs to curb migration to check the rise of extremist politics. John Kerry, of all people, appeared to agree, and went farther than that.

In a separate interview with The Guardian, two weeks ago, Kerry said that Europe has been, quote, crushed by migration pressure causing instability in Germany and Italy. All true, by the way.

Dana Perino hosts The Daily Briefing and The Five, the most beloved person on this channel. She joins us tonight to explain. What's going on?

DANA PERINO, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, FOX NEWS HOST, THE DAILY BRIEFING WITH DANA PERINO, THE FIVE CO-HOST: Greg's going to be very upset. Greg Gutfeld will be upset that you said that.

CARLSON: Well I mean that's a - that - it's neck and neck.

PERINO: All right, well good for him (ph).

CARLSON: But - but what - so they - I should also note that both of them were attacked by lifestyle Liberals in the United States, defenders of the status quo for saying that. But why did they say that, do you think?

PERINO: I think you have to go back a little bit. Remember, both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Panetta, if you're going back, right, Podesta - Panetta - Panetta, yes, all said that they disagreed with Obama when it came to how to deal with the rise of ISIS in Syria, OK?

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: So they - they all - when - when they left their - Gates (ph), as well, they all leave, they all write books, and they all say, "We disagreed with President Obama. But he was the President. We had to basically follow in lockstep."

They wanted to do something much more aggressive. But because the rise of ISIS is allowed to happen, and then you have the huge migration crisis and you have Angela Merkel making a decision that will go down in history as probably the worst ever in Europe in the - in the - in the modern era--

CARLSON: Yes.

PERINO: --all of these migrants come. And remember, Putin opens up the floodgates and says, "Yes, absolutely, you should go to Europe," right? He knew the destabilization would happen.

CARLSON: Yes.

PERINO: We didn't do anything to stop it. So, I think that actually Kerry and Clinton were more centrist and responsible when they were Secretaries of State than and they weren't - but they weren't able to influence the President, and they fully admit that in their books.

CARLSON: How interesting? Hillary Clinton, and I can't believe I'm saying this, because I've often noted she's totally banal in almost everything she says. Nothing is interesting, but she did make a legitimately interesting point when she said, this pace of change, demographic change, gives rise to extremist politics.

And, of course, she's absolutely right. When you ignore the population in a democracy, they seek other ways to express themselves. Do you think that idea, so clearly true, will catch on here?

PERINO: I do. And I actually think that we have to look at this new Congress and the new Governors, the Democrats that won the governorships, just look across the - the - the spectrum.

If you look at the woman who won the New Mexico 2 District, her name is Torres Small, she actually ran on a pretty tough border security piece. But she also said she wanted to deal with DACA the way that President Trump--

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: --had suggested that he was willing to do. The Republicans are going to take their cues from President Trump. If he says, "I'm willing to do something here. Let's bring back that deal. Nancy Pelosi, now, you're the Speaker of the House. Let's - let's try to work this out."

And then I have this little fantasy, Tucker, that Gavin Newsom, the new Governor-elect of California, could be a Democratic Ambassador, who comes to the White House and says, "Look, I'm not from Washington. I want to help try to solve this problem. Mr. President, you and I should try to work this together. I'll bring the Democrats. You bring the Republicans. And we can try - finally actually get things done."

And I think you might actually end up with something President Trump would be happy with. But that would be really good for the country.

CARLSON: That's so interesting. And I don't mean this as an insult against Newsom, just an observation, he doesn't believe in anything. And sometimes, the people who don't believe in anything or totally Machiavellian are the ones who get things done in the era (ph).

PERINO: But if - if you're not ideological, right--

CARLSON: That's right.

PERINO: --I mean wasn't that the appeal of President Trump as well, right? He's willing--

CARLSON: Right. No, sure.

PERINO: --to get a deal done. And I just think that he has political capital to spend. He is in a border state. This is affecting him. Look at his businesses. Want to figure out a way to get migrant workers to come temporarily to work and to go back. He's got a problem too.

But he also has a political future. And I don't think anyone in Washington is up to the task. I think it's going to have to be someone from the outside coming to President Trump saying, "I'm willing to hold your hand and jump together, sir. We can do this."

CARLSON: I hope he doesn't (ph).

PERINO: I might be optimistic though.

CARLSON: Yes, I don't know. I'm more cynical. But that's super interesting, either way. Dana, thank you very much for that.

PERINO: Thanks.

CARLSON: Well, an amazing new poll, which can't be real because it contradicts everything they're telling you in the other channels, shows pretty conclusively that Mexican citizens dislike the Caravan currently occupying their country, which, of course, means they're anti-Hispanic racists.

Can that be real? That question, next.

Plus, we'll ask the Ambassador to Germany how well mass immigration worked in that country. That's just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The migrant Caravan continues to cast appall over American politics. But at least for now, they're not on U.S. soil. They're in Mexico, right on the border in Tijuana.

While the convoy agitates to be let into this country, no questions asked, the City of Tijuana is stuck with feeding and housing the migrants. And many Tijuana residents are fed up with that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not really in favor of them coming the way they did. You know, to me, it feels like they invaded.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In my more than 20 years working here, I've never seen a situation of this kind. It's as if we're in a war zone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you worried more are coming?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very much. We - we are not prepared for this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): But there are ways in which I can enter your home, asking for support, and help. This was not the correct way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are here because our government has not taken control of these, what we call invasions.

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Should this Caravan had been stopped at the Guatemala border?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course. I - I agree with that 100 percent. It should have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Of course. Well, a new poll by a Mexican newspaper finds that seven in 10 Mexican citizens hold a negative view of migrant families entering their country. 52 percent of Mexicans say their country should block any migrants from entering the country without documentation.

So, the question is, we're getting this right from CNN, are the citizens of Mexico anti-Hispanic racists? They've got to be with those attitudes.

Ethan Bearman is a California radio host, and he joins us tonight. Ethan, what I find amazing about this is that the international racist conspiracy is so vast that it includes the majority of Mexican citizens, like I never even imagined that, in my wildest dreams. Are you surprised to hear it?

ETHAN BEARMAN, LIBERAL RADIO SHOW HOST: I - I'm actually not surprised, Tucker, because we, as human beings, have a history of not liking the other. This dates way back. This is a deep part of our brains. So, anytime that we see other people coming into our country, we have a negative response to it.

That is something that we have to consciously overcome to connect as fellow human beings because, don't forget, these migrants are human beings.

CARLSON: Yes. But they're also and - and, by the way, there's some truth in what you just said. And - and I think it's a - it's a fair kind of non- judgmental observation of human nature. And - and I agree with it, I think.

What I don't agree with is the reduction by the morons in control of our culture and our public conversation of everything to a simple Black versus White, White versus Hispanic racial divide.

And what I guess these pictures in interview show us is that it's much more complicated. They're not racists for not wanting their country changed by migration overnight. Are they?

BEARMAN: No. That - that doesn't make them racist. But again, I mean, so, Tucker, we don't live on the Savanna. We're not cavemen, anymore.

So, we shouldn't give into those deep base feelings that are in, what some people call, the lizard brain part of our brains that are there that say, anybody different - we had to live that way tens of thousands of years ago to protect ourselves.

We're more advanced than that now. We actually have the technology to identify people, to process and to help people because, remember, these are asylum seekers who are fleeing violence--

CARLSON: Well they're not - leave - no, but leaving aside that--

BEARMAN: --and food and security.

CARLSON: --no, they're not - OK, first of all, they're not fleeing a war. If they qualify for asylum that means that every person in the nation of Honduras, by definition, qualifies for asylum, which is, of course, insane. But that's a separate debate.

Let me just - I just want to - I'm interested though that you're giving the residents of Tijuana every benefit - every benefit of every doubt. And you're saying their atavistic instincts are welling up like all people's would, and I get it.

That's basically what you're saying. And I appreciate that you're saying that. I've never heard any Liberals say that about American citizens, who say, "Wait a second. My country's totally different." "Racist, shut up, bad person, Klansmen."

Why don't we give our own people the benefit of the doubt in the way that you're giving the residents of Tijuana?

BEARMAN: Well, interestingly enough, Tucker, you and I have had similar conversations about people here in the United States before. And again - might - what I appeal though is for us to not just give in to those base instincts, even here in the United States.

We need to remember that these are human beings who deserve our care and our treatment as fellow human beings, so we don't just demonize them and say, "Oh my gosh, they're invading," because they're not necessarily invading--

CARLSON: OK. But--

BEARMAN: --they're fleeing. And yes, by the way, they are fleeing what is essentially a war when MS-13 has taken over countries like El Salvador and dominated huge swaths--

CARLSON: Right.

BEARMAN: --of that country. That is like a--

CARLSON: Well sure but O--

BEARMAN: --war zone.

CARLSON: --OK. But they also have a point of view, and you're acknowledging, for the first time, in the immigration debate that the other side needs representation as well.

Their lives are being changed, are being affected, it's costly, it's chaotic, like they have a perspective that we can't ignore by dismissing them as bigots. You're acknowledging that.

And I'm saying why can't we afford that same presumption of decency to American citizens? It's not just that they're irrational when a million new people come in every year, when you've got 22 million undocumented in your country that has an effect on you. It's OK to be upset about it, isn't it?

BEARMAN: Well it - look, we can acknowledge that assimilation can be difficult for the first generation. But remember, it's the second and third generations that assimilate, and we no longer have those feelings once we get over that initial shock of, hey, maybe they're speaking a different language, maybe they're eating different food, which we end up loving in this country.

These are things that we can't give into that base instinct. And, yes, we are a much bigger country that's much more economically rich. We have more resources available to help people--

CARLSON: Well I don't think (ph)--

BEARMAN: --and we have to (ph) remember to help.

CARLSON: --I don't think that's true. I think, actually, we're basically a broke country that thinks it's still rich, sort of like a - an aristocratic family in decline. We don't know how rotten the foundations are. But whatever, separate conversation.

But will you, at least, concede the decent - this is all I want, from this conversation that decent people can look at mass migration and say, "You know what? I'm not into it. I don't like it," and that doesn't make them bad people?

BEARMAN: It doesn't make them bad.

CARLSON: Good.

BEARMAN: And again, I just want to say that we can't live our lives where (ph) we still live in caves, and we're tribes on the Savannah.

And so, that's why (ph) I say we have to rise above that. It doesn't make you bad that you have that base instinct. But, if you just give in to it and stop there, you've stunted your own growth, and I don't think that's healthy.

CARLSON: To be continued, Ethan Bearman. Great to see you. Thank you.

BEARMAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well NBC fired Matt Lauer for sexual harassment a year ago - a year ago, tomorrow, actually. The question is what's happened at NBC since? Has it learned anything? Has there been a real investigation? Is it pervasive sexual harassment at NBC?

We're going to speak to someone who worked at NBC, who has kept abreast of the story, and has details for us on that, after the break.

Plus, Creepy Porn Lawyer came on this show and furiously denied that he was exploiting Stormy Daniels. Now, Stormy Daniels is suggesting, yes, he is exploiting her. An amazing new twist in the seediest news story of the year, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of NBC News firing Matt Lauer that, of course, followed allegations of sexual harassment by the Today show host.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH CLARK GUTHRIE, AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN BROADCAST JOURNALIST, ATTORNEY, CO-ANCHOR OF TODAY, NBC NEWS: For the moment, all we can say is that we are heartbroken. I'm heartbroken for Matt. He is my dear, dear friend and my partner. And he is beloved by many, many people here. And I'm heartbroken for the brave colleague who came forward to tell her story, and any other women who have their own stories to tell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It was a huge story, as you remember. NBC said it would fix itself after the scandal, get to the bottom of what happened, and prevent it from happening again. Did they do that?

Linda Vester has been following this very carefully ever since. She's a philanthropist, a filmmaker, and a former network news anchor, including here. Her group (ph) has a full-page ad running in The New York Times tomorrow morning, also a piece on the foxnews.com opinion section published just minutes ago, which is definitely worth reading.

Linda Vester joins us tonight. Linda, thanks very much for coming on. So, one of the--

LINDA VESTER, AMERICAN TELEVISION NEWS HOST, FORMER FOX NEWS & NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Thank you very much for having me.

CARLSON: --reasons I'm grateful that you're bringing this to public attention is that there was supposed to be an investigation, a public investigation, from which we could all learn, you know, what happened. And I sort of--

VESTER: Yes.

CARLSON: --wonder what - where is it?

VESTER: Well, they published the results of this so-called investigation. But--

CARLSON: But--

VESTER: --the - the truth wasn't in there because at least six women, at least six women, who were victimized by Matt Lauer, this according to them telling me personally or people close to them confirming to me, were never interviewed.

And they had damaging details about Lauer and about others in management who allegedly protected him. Nothing happened. They weren't spoken to properly. That also means also there are four members who are on-air talent, who worked closely with Matt, who were never interviewed. They too had important information.

And I believe the network knew it that - that not only implicated Matt but implicated other men in positions of power at NBC News. And that never got investigated. There has to be a question about why that didn't get out?

Why did Andy Lack, the Chairman of NBC News not let this get out? Is it because he himself has a history of reported sexual misconduct in the workplace in the past and, so, he himself is guilty? Or is it because he just wanted to protect and - to protect other high-profile men at the company?

He cares more about the bottom line, doesn't really care about the women, whose lives and careers and reputations are being destroyed. He just cares about the money, and the men he wants to protect.

CARLSON: But this is part of - NBC is part of a large publicly-traded company, Comcast.

VESTER: That's right.

CARLSON: And you would think they would have an interest in getting to the bottom of this. Why haven't they?

VESTER: It is long overdue that the Comcast Board of Directors get involved. You're right. They are Directors of a publicly-traded company. They're answerable to shareholders. They are answerable to the public.

This is a broadcaster that is regulated by the FCC. So, these Board of Directors, they cannot get away with burying their heads in the sand. These are real women whose lives and careers and reputations are being destroyed. They can't ignore them.

Comcast just put out a Twitter handle yesterday that said ComcastCares. Well, does it really? The Directors need to make it their business, get involved, to investigate all of the alleged predators at NBC News, not just Matt Lauer, not just Tom Brokaw, who assaulted and harassed me, but the many, many others.

And they need to get to the bottom of it. They need to publish the findings. And they need to clean out what's wrong at NBC News, and really be a beacon as a journalistic organization should be.

CARLSON: You - you mentioned Andy Lack who runs it and--

VESTER: Right.

CARLSON: --suggested that he himself ought to be investigated. Has--

VESTER: Yes.

CARLSON: --he been? And--

VESTER: No.

CARLSON: --and did - do you think there's evidence that that he ought to be the subject of an investigation?

VESTER: I know of two particular victims of his. Both have been interviewed by reporters. And I know of a member of CBS News Management, who was involved in both of those cases, who confirmed that to me.

So, yes, that exists. And it's also been in print. I mean this is out in the news. And it's - and what is shocking to me is that it's easily findable. You could Google this. And does NBCUniversal and Comcast just not care?

Does Steve Burke, Andy Lack's boss, did he know about this, and just not care that he had an alleged, I would say, predator running the news division? Does Brian Roberts not care? It was founded as - Comcast was founded as a family company.

CARLSON: Right.

VESTER: Tell me how that is a family company when women are being abused and being silenced? And these non-disclosure agreements and - and forced arbitration are literally choking their very voices off, and protect - preventing them from speaking. How fair, moral, and ethical is that? This is a news organization. They should do much better.

CARLSON: Well the - the fact that Andy Lack has been accused of that, who's running it, is shocking. Can you, very quickly, can you give us a sense of the - of the timeframe on those allegations against Andy Lack?

VESTER: They were in the 80s, I am told, by the people who were knowledgeable about this, and when he was Executive Producer at West 57th at--

CARLSON: Amazing.

VESTER: --CBS.

CARLSON: Amazing story. NBC ought to be leading the charge to get to the truth, but they're not. Instead--

VESTER: They should.

CARLSON: --you are. Linda Vester--

VESTER: Well, thank you.

CARLSON: --thank you very much for that.

VESTER: Thank you.

CARLSON: Germany's Angela Merkel took a chance three years ago by letting in almost a million asylum seekers at one time. How has that worked out for her and for her country? We'll ask the Ambassador to Germany that very question, after the break.

And then, the Creepy Porn Lawyer's client, Stormy Daniels, just made several pretty shocking allegations about him, her lawyer. We'll have all of that, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: America isn't the only country facing economic pressure and social volatility from unrestrained immigration. Just three years ago, Europe faced its own wave of migrants from Africa and the Middle East.

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, responded to this by accepting nearly a million migrants in a single year. Adjusted for population, that would be like this country taking in 4 million in just 12 months. Three years after that, how has that decision affected Germany and Merkel's political career?

Ric Grenell is the current U.S. Ambassador to Germany, and he joins us tonight. Ambassador, thanks very much for coming on.

RICHARD GRENELL, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY, FORMER U.S. SPOKESMAN AT THE UNITED NATIONS: Of course, thanks--

CARLSON: So--

GRENELL: --for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: --so, you're starting to see even figures on the Left, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, most prominently, but others rethinking the political fallout from Merkel's decision to do that in Germany. From where you sit, what was the effect of letting in those migrants?

GRENELL: Well, first of all, let's talk about the political effect. There was no plan in place. So, the policy really fell apart. Chancellor Merkel and - and many in Germany had big hearts. They wanted to do something. But there wasn't a plan.

And so, even Chancellor Merkel now, all these years later, has agreed that there was no plan and, therefore, the entire policy kind of fell apart because it wasn't implemented with - with, you know, hard core security measures, and follow-up.

So, from the political standpoint, next week, Chancellor Merkel is giving up her Chairmanship of the Party. There are three other people running. And the top issue, one of the top issues, is migration and her handling of migration.

So, politically, I would say that it really toppled her and has - has forced her now to give up the Chairmanship of a Party that she once ran with a - a very strong arm.

CARLSON: What's so interesting watching Germany from here is how the German press and its cultural leaders responded?

So, this was three years ago, and it was immediately obvious that a lot of ordinary Germans didn't like it, and that it was causing the crime rate to go up, and that it was causing economic pressure on ordinary Germans.

But people weren't allowed to say that for a number of years in public, or, am I misreading it?

GRENELL: No, you're exactly right. And I would even go so far as to say that we still have that problem here in Germany. There's still an overreaction, if you complain about wanting secure borders or just an - an orderly process.

Look, this is not about whether or not you have a heart. This is about whether or not you have a plan. And - and--

CARLSON: Right.

GRENELL: --we in the United States know that a million people a year get U.S. citizenship. We are very generous. This is not about not wanting to have immigrants.

And - and the whole idea that - that the Left or the some on the Right, even, or the media are somehow mixing up legal immigration with illegal immigration is really an - an outrage.

And those of us in public policy positions have to be able to push back and say, look, we're not talking about legal immigration. The United States is very generous. Germany has been very generous.

This is about whether or not you have a plan because not everyone is going to be able to come, and that's what you have to be able to say is we must prioritize. What is that number? Is it a million people in the United States? Is it 4 million people in - in Germany over a number of years?

What is that number? Because whatever that number is, it's still going to be too low. You're still going to turn people away. So, let's have an orderly process and figure out how to do legal immigration, and do it the right way.

CARLSON: Are people - because I think that's what we need in the United States is an honest adult conversation about what we can afford, what's good for our country, and what the next 100 years looks like demographically. We can't have that conversation here. Can Germans have it?

GRENELL: Look, I - I think the United States is having a better conversation than the Germans, to be honest. This has largely been controlled by elites in Berlin. But, normal, everyday people are beginning to say, wait a minute, this policy is not working. This is not about being generous. We are very generous.

They have - they have a lot of open borders throughout Europe. But I would also argue that the mistakes of Germany, Tucker, have rippled throughout all of Europe because--

CARLSON: Yes.

GRENELL: --we've seen in Austria, for instance, with Sebastian Kurz who came in with a platform to say, we must have security and a set of rules. This is not about not being generous. This is not about not being open to immigrants.

But this is about just having rules. And once he established the fact that he wanted rules, Sebastian Kurz won in - in a very big way, and is now becoming very popular throughout Germany.

CARLSON: Yes.

GRENELL: So, while some in the media in Germany will try to push this into saying, "Well you're a radical far-Right person," the - the reality is, is that normal, everyday Germans and Europeans are clamoring for leaders who want to have safe and secure borders in an orderly--

CARLSON: Right.

GRENELL: --process.

CARLSON: Well if they want to create radicals, they should keep lying to the population because that's what they're going to get. Ambassador Grenell, thank you very much, great to see you tonight.

GRENELL: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well Stormy Daniels has made a remarkable and, yet, predictable allegation against the Creepy Porn Lawyer. We'll have the details for you, right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We close tonight with breaking news about a man we thought we'd never mention again on this show, a man who for a bright, ugly moment dominated cable news. And then, like Sanjaya (ph), receded into well- deserved obscurity.

But he is back for a moment, Creepy Porn Lawyer. You'll remember, he came on this show, couple of months ago, and suggested that he was a feminist. We responded that he was, in fact, exploiting a troubled woman, Stormy Daniels, in order to transform himself from a sleazy lawyer into a presidential contender, and here's how he responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Stormy Daniels is right now working in strip clubs in little towns on stage. People are throwing things at her. You're wearing a $1,000 suit. Why is you - why are you not paying her?

You've profited from Stormy Daniels. You've done tens of millions dollars' worth of free media on the basis of your relationship with her and she's working in strip clubs. You're exploiting her, and you know that. Why aren't you paying her some of what you're making?

MICHAEL JOHN AVENATTI, ATTORNEY, ENTREPRENEUR: Sir, this is absurd. I have not exploited--

CARLSON: It's not absurd. Those are the facts.

AVENATTI: I've done a remarkable job for my client and she'll be the first one to tell you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well, it turns out that his client will not be the first one to tell you that or to vouch for his services as a lawyer.

Today, Stormy Daniels leveled several - several blockbuster allegations against Creepy Porn Lawyer. First, she said that he sued the President for defamation against her without telling her. That could be a crime.

There's more, though. In a statement to The Daily Beast, Stormy Daniels says, "For months, I've asked him to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago, I demanded again repeatedly that he tell me how the money was being spent, and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge," the Creepy Porn Lawyer, "launched another crowd-funding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter."

That is her statement. Well it turns out the Creepy Porn Lawyer is right about one thing. He has done a remarkable job for himself, the only client who matters.

Thanks a lot for the last hour. We'll be back tomorrow. Sean Hannity, right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.